Skepticism

EVENTS

I feel so dirty now

Kent Hovind is counting the days now, and unfortunately he has followers who are going to afflict us with badly made videos. If you feel the need to be deathly bored, here’s an interview with Hovind’s “lawyer” (not really a lawyer, but a “consultant” on Hovind’s financial planning — which is why he’s in jail right now.) Yes, you want to listen to this man’s crazy tax advice.

Hey folks! New way to mass communicate! Check clubcreation.org and ask about Zello! They let us out 1st today so it’s 4am in Vancouver.. I’ll not call. Maybe tomorrow?

For Tommy Comer- The 1040 days of wrath is from Dan 8 and the 2300 days of the temple being desolate minus the 1260 days of great trib we go through. more in WOE about that! WOE=What on Earth is About to Happen for Heaven’s Sake by Dr. Hovind

For Ian- He does good math but bad logic- he needs to see seminar part 4 about Jump frog! Ps 104:6-9 says the mountains rose up near the end of the flood and the water rushed off. There is enough water in the oceans today to cover the earth 8000ft deep. Plenty to drown in. As for "comparing his doctorate with mine" if his education left him believing he came from a rock I’m already un-impressed! he also makes the silly assumption that the water for the flood came from rain where the Bible says it came from inside the earth via the fountains of the deep. He also says the flood lasted 40 days where the Bible says the earth was covered for 5 months and Noah was in the ark over a year. read the Bible Ian!

For PZ- glad you exposed Michael Shermer’s behavior and his rape of the other atheist at the atheist conference. I don’t understand how any atheist can decide ANYTHING is right or wrong. Where is the standard to judge by? If that woman’s husband or brothers or dad or uncles get Shermer drunk and make him a eunuch (which I suspect they have thought of and may yet still do!) would that be "wrong" in PZ thinking? Christians have God’s Word to show us right and wrong. What do atheists have?

Until next time.. see you at the finish line!

Kent Hovind

Jebus. I decide that something may be wrong by empathizing with the victim, and recognizing that an injustice was done. I don’t need a magic book to see that a harm was done to someone else. Further, when a wrong is committed, it makes me a worse person to consider committing a greater wrong in revenge. That Hovind considers castration to be a reasonable response simply tells me that God’s Word is simply a compendium of barbarisms used to excuse savagery.

Comments

Ken Ham discovered how effective “God’s Word” is when he relied on it as his sole authority during his debacle (I hesitate to say “debate”) with Bill Nye. Kent Hovind’s invocation of same while (apparently) decrying possible barbarous behavior (not necessarily by atheists) conveniently ignores the book’s frequent endorsement of violence and murder.

“The other atheist”. One gets the distinct sense they don’t care about “the other atheist” except in that they can use her as a tool to say that an atheist did a bad thing. Also note the assumption that her male relatives will be the one taking burly manly revenge, because “the other atheist” certainly has no agency of her own. And if she did, that would just prove she was a rebellious and sinful woman.

I work with some people who would find Hovind’s analysis of the Flood to be spot on. We’ve had our debates on the subject (not arguments, I want to keep my job), but they are very much the “don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve made up my mind” types. I asked one about whether the laws of physics (refraction) changed so that Noah could see the first rainbow after the flood. He said no, maybe it hadn’t rained before the flood.

Because of my exposure to these people, I very much recognize Hovind’s point of view. I’m the misguided fool in their eyes, without the guidance of God to tell me right from wrong. I even asked one outright if his belief was the only thing keeping him from doing bad things. He said he knew he was a sinful person, and needed that set of rules and threat of eternal punishment to keep him from being evil.

It’s like the joke about the number of psychiatrists required to change a light bulb. The answer is one, but the bulb has to want to change. These people don’t want to change.

If that woman’s husband or brothers or dad or uncles get Shermer drunk and make him a eunuch …

Why would only her male relatives do this? Is it because she is their possession, and their property has been damaged? Does Hovind not think women have feelings or capabilities? Or is it that cutting organs off is Kent’s idea of a proper reaction, but women shouldn’t touch a man’s penis?

And why get him drunk first? So he doesn’t know why he was punished? That’s kinda how God works, though, with massive confusion, but big punishment.

What is really happening, in the poor, benighted atheist world, is that complete strangers are trying to help the victim. And to make sure it doesn’t happen any more by spreading information, by telling the truth. And, sadly, that is regarded by some as cruel treatment (Christ only knows what they would say to Hovind’s plan).

Inmate 06452-017, currently at the Federal Correctional Institute in Berlin, New Hampshire with a projected release date of August 11, 2015 – Kent Hovind (a/k/a Dr. Dino).

In Dr. Dino’s absence Hovind the Younger has started his own “creation ministry” that sells DVD’s, books and other nonsense. No adventure land or big productions. Just a low-key, presumably tax compliant creationist company.

It will be interesting to see how ex-con Dr. Dino fits into the new company and if we’ll witness a Dino Schism.

Ken apparently doesn’t know his own book. According to it, the proper remedy was for The Other Atheist’s family to pay Shermer and force them to get married. That’s assuming she cried loud enough for people to hear her. Otherwise The Other Atheist’s family is supposed to stone her to death.

So basically, Hovind is telling us that Christians don’t believe there’s any such thing as right and wrong— there’s no morality, there is only power and the exercise thereof.

Honestly, it bugs me when atheists say that divine command theory or whatever we’re calling it these days is a moral theory, and that religionists who subscribe to it have an incoherent or barbaric moral theory. They don’t, because divine command theory isn’t a moral theory. Morality requires, at a bare minimum, the idea that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it, even if it’s in your own self-interest to do so. The idea of “morality from God” doesn’t mean that standard, because it holds that God can do whatever he wants and people should only obey his dictates out of their own self-interest, and as such it’s not actually morality despite using the language thereof.

I don’t think this is a terribly strong answer PZ. *Some* atheists respect our fellow human beings. But what about those that are often shitty human beings? The libertarian contingent, for instance. They don’t think through the implications of their belief to see how it would impact their fellow human beings. If they did, I like to think they’d recognize that their philosophy is harmful and would increase suffering in the world.
What about the loudmouth antifeminists, such as Thunderf00t, the horribly misnamed “Amazing Atheist”, or the ‘Pitters? Oh, I’m sure they have respect for some of their fellow humans, but they’ve more than demonstrated a lack of respect for women. They probably wouldn’t agree with that, but based on their opposition to no-brainers like harassment policies or their lack of empathy for rape victims, I’d certainly characterize them as being empathy deficient. I wouldn’t say that they have respect for their fellow human beings. Maybe selective respect, which isn’t too different from christians who respect humans who aren’t LGBTQI.

I think a better answer would have been one that acknowledges that atheists and christians aren’t so different. Some among both groups are horribly selfish and empathy deficient assholes. And there are some among both groups that demonstrate great compassion, empathy, and the ability to say “I’ve got mine, and I’d like to help you out too, bc I don’t like to see other people suffer”. The values of Humanism drive those atheists (I realize that’s what you probably meant, but the pithy closing sentence fails to effectively convey that).

If the Bible is the source of his morality, how come he’s in prison? As I recall, the good book has a story in it about “Render unto Caesar” which I was taught in Sunday School means “pay your taxes.” And there was nothing about making excuses for not doing so or hedging over legal fine points. So I take it his personal morality is rather slippery and self-serving.

KH: Christians have God’s Word to show us right and wrong. What do atheists have?
PZM: Here’s what atheists have: respect for our fellow human beings.

This doesn’t say that atheists are all good people who show respect for others. It says that respect for others is the tool atheists can use to determine right from wrong. Basically, a different meaning of “have”.

There is enough water in the oceans today to cover the earth 8000ft deep.— Ken “Maths and Earth Science Dunning-Kruger” Hamm

Huh. Given that the earth today has DRY LAND because the water is filling those giant spaces between the cratons (forming what are generally known as “oceans”), I’d say that someone is Terribly, Terribly confused.

Now, I could calculate the volume of an eggshell oblate sphereoid, with inner radius averaging 6,378 km and outer radius averaging 6,380 km (for a thickness of 2 2/8ths km / 8,000′), but I can’t be bothered to waste time on a simple calculation to prove an idiot wrong. Because, reasons.

Interestingly, his “8,000′” of depth is only .016% more than the current distance from the center of the earth, basically negligible. There are several mountains that are taller than this.

What was the point? That the Fairy Tale of Noah and his 7 Family Members who Took Care of 2 (or 7) of Every Animal for A Year With No Resupply But Lots Of Magic is real?

Damn, there’s still so much distilled stupid here, I’m going to post one more and then Shut Up.

I don’t understand how any atheist can decide ANYTHING is right or wrong. Where is the standard to judge by?

Hovind, you ignorant slut, if you bothered to take an introductory Sociology Class at any reputable University, you would easily know the answer to your “question.”

Where values come from can be easily attributable to Ferdinand Tönnies’ Gemeinschaft, or “one’s own community”. Each member of the community (slightly) contributes to and is (greatly) influenced by the common values.

Ken apparently doesn’t know his own book. According to it, the proper remedy was for The Other Atheist’s family to pay Shermer and force them to get married. That’s assuming she cried loud enough for people to hear her. Otherwise The Other Atheist’s family is supposed to stone her to death.

No, no. That’s not how it goes.

The rape victim is supposed to marry the rapist only if she is an unbetrothed virgin, regardless of how loud she screamed.

The rape victim and the rapist are supposed to be killed with rocks only if the rape victim is betrothed or married, and the rape occurred in the city. The “reasoning” is that in the city she was supposed to scream loud enough to be heard while the rapist was attacking her, and summon enough outraged males to repel the rapist and so not be raped in the first place.

The “reasoning” is that in the city she was supposed to scream loud enough to be heard while the rapist was attacking her [ snip ]

ummm, because it’s only “rape”, if she screams i.e. it hurt. If she didn’t scream, it meant she enjoyed it (i.e. was a slut) and therefore, it was NOT rape.
[I only say this, cuz it seems to be what all the modern “on lookers” are saying, “It’s only rape, if it hurt. And she who enjoyed it, is lying that she was raped.” “To harm, no rape. QED.” (and sluts can NOT be raped, ever; even if she says NO). [and only “sluts” are outside the city, “good girls” stay in the city]
.
ugh, blech, gotta wash my poor little brain of all the vibes I experiencing…

Why do we continue to act stunned that cretins like Hovind lack reason and empathy? If he had those qualities (as well as another little one called intelligence), perhaps he wouldn’t have spent the last decade in prison.

In the bible, it’s the other way around. The Deuteronomist specifically grants an exemption on the {betrothed} rape victim being killed with rocks if the rape took place outside the city, because she probably screamed and wasn’t heard.

Wasn’t he just so merciful?

City girls are sluts if they don’t scream, and deserve to die. Country girls are good girls, brought up right, and scream like they’re supposed to, but aren’t heard, so they don’t deserve to die.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Timothy 6:1

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Exodus 21

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Ah yes, the Bible is such a rich source of morality and rules to live by!

I think we are all going to the miss days of Kent Hovind sending dispatches from his prison cell. Seeing the idiot clown about in person, excessively and at length, just like all the other comrades in clownery, is just going to seem like such a step backward.

We atheists just know “right from wrong” the same way they, the believers “know” that Jesus exists and he tells them what’s right and wrong. It’s that Occam’s Razor thing. We simply don’t need the magic guy.

I’d ask Hovind what he would do if he was praying for God’s guidance, and suddenly Hovind felt the spirit move him to go to a bar, find a drunk woman, get her more drunk, then rape her. Would he have faith that no matter what God’s reason, it is what God wants, and so Hovind would execute the plan, or would he lack faith and not trust God and not rape her after all. How can Hovind decide?

I know, I know, Hovind would cop out and say God wouldn’t say that to him, so it is a silly question. Yet thousands of people do have religious experiences exhorting them to violence, so it isn’t out the realm of possibility. In fact, I think people as sold on religion as Hovind are more likely to have such an experience.

Gee, I just realized that I have no idea whether rape or murder is right or wrong. Where can I possibly find some morals? If I should murder a couple people, though, it’s okay because God will forgive me.

I’m not sure whether sarcasm is, itself, the prime tip-off that someone is speaking from ignorance or that they cannot come up with a decent argument. Never mind that sarcasm is usually considered an inappropriate mode when discussing matters like rape — any human loss or tragedy, actually. He sustains a continuous note of content-free contempt through five sentences, back to back.

Sarcasm really does seem to be the lowest form of wit, useful in small doses just to liven up a strong position. His feign of ignorance reminds me of Chopra’s apparently deliberate conflation of virtual experience with his pet theory regarding “consciousness”, whatever he means by that, as the source of all reality. Does Hovind really not understand how a person can make decisions from an ethical intuition, practice, or ruleset? What is this “standard” business? Does he truly think that the so-called “standards” he divines in his own soul, such as they are, come directly from this thing he calls God’s Word? Surely he is not talking about the Bible! Has he read that thing? He must be talking about something virtually real.

I love the rhetoric of sarcasm Hovind elects to use while saying that since he cannot figure out the source of one’s morality it must therefore not exist! Ironic that he’d do that right after celebrating a new way to communicate. He might consider revising some of the old ways first. Just a thought.

Gee, I just realized that I have no idea whether rape or murder is right or wrong. Where can I possibly find some morals? If I should murder a couple people, though, it’s okay because God will forgive me.

According to Hovind, there’s a book you can consult to determine whether your actions are right or wrong.

If christians have a book that tells them right from wrong, why do christians ever disagree about what is right or wrong? Could it be that the book doesn’t actually tell you?
If christians believe in a god that wants them to do right, and that god is super omniscient and powerful and has laser beams that shoot out of his eyes and shit like that, why do christians ever do anything wrong? Could it be that they don’t actually believe in god or that the book is vague?

If I believed that particular bill of goods, I’d sit on the couch and never do anything for fear of pissing it off. I’d wait until I could die of natural causes (bedsores from sitting on the couch?) so I could go to heaven.

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

How does he get the idea that the mountains rose after the flood from this passage? I can see how this might be about some flood water going into the sky (to later become rain) and the rest draining away, but nothing here gives me a sense that the mountains changed in any way.

I knew he had no compunctions against distorting science. Apparently lying about what the Bible says is OK too.

I don’t have any problem with the original SNL skit, as it happens. But just like Chris Rock wished he’d never performed that n*gg*r routine because of the way racists appropriated it as a way to be publicly racist under cover of “just joking”, sexists have appropriated the “you ignorant slut* routine, able-ists have appropriated the Forrest Gump meme, and gits in general use the comedy pass to marginalise others any way they can.

I am unwilling to accept that sort of splash damage happening to people around me just because once upon a time somebody wrote something powerfully satirical or moving. The original work may still be extremely worthwhile, but that doesn’t mean that every reference to it is just a harmless bit of fun.

Just because something was funny way back doesn’t mean it can’t be harmful or represent problematic attitudes. It’s not all or nothing.

A personal example: I watched Revenge of the Nerds a million times when I was a kid. I love the movie, even now. Yet, I also recognize that it has some incredibly problematic attitudes towards women and consent in general (with a main character basically raping the female lead with not a word of criticism, not even from her).

This movie is full of these mixed messages. Just take the portrayal of the gay character, Lamar: He’s shown in a very positive light, as a decent person and highly skilled in a number of ways. He’s openly gay and is never rejected for his sexuality.
But on the other hand, most of his character is a collection of gay stereotypes, right down to winning the javelin competition with a javelin specially designed for his “limp-wristed throwing style”. The fact that it’s a clever joke (i.e. unexpected, but still immediately understood) doesn’t mean it isn’t also problematic in it’s almost cartoony presentation of gay people*. It can be both.

Furthermore, there’s the issue of how something is referenced. From what I can gather, the point of the “ignorant slut” bit was to make the character saying it the object of ridicule. Was that the way Usernames are smart used it? No.
If the reference was true to the original, that would imply that Usernames was trying to ridicule himself and portraying his critique of Hovind as ridiculous and invalid. I don’t think that was what he was doing, so the reference seems kinda misplaced. Instead of ridiculing sexist bullshit, it fell into the hole of using sexist bullshit as a way of ridiculing someone else.

We might also consider why the original bit was phrased the way it was. It’s not as if SNL invented the phrase “ignorant slut”; they used that because people were already saying it and meaning it. The words may reference SNL, but SNL references actual sexist attitudes.
The words have a meaning beyond and before this joke. For someone to read the words in their plain meaning is not unreasonable, especially since (as mentioned above) the way it was said was in the style of a serious slur, not the self-ridiculing manner of the SNL skit. If you want to reference a joke like that, you really have to be careful how you do it or you end up reinforcing what you were trying to attack.
*
But, one could point out that all the characters are stereotypes to some degree, but the main characters also get to have real human moments, while Lamar doesn’t, but Lamar isn’t a lead character, but why couldn’t he be, but it’s not a movie about gay people, but why not… etc.

please, now tell me how a pop culture reference to Forest Gump is denigrating the mentally handicapped.

Isn’t it, though? You used it in response to a person you presumably disagree with and dislike. Forrest Gump is the protagonist in every way in the movie. He’s upstanding and absurdly skilled. So…how is it NOT ableist? What trait of Gump were you ascribing? How would anyone else know that given that the fact that he’s disabled is both a primary character trait in the movie and a primary trait in the cultural cachet?

Clarification: the reference made here appears unfavorable while the movie (though very problematic) takes great pains to make Forrest favorable in as many ways as possible. So, what part of Forrest is unfavorable that that comparison could be valid and NOT ableist?

(I should really try to at least get out of bed before trying to put together a sentence next time.)

please, now tell me how a pop culture reference to Forest Gump is denigrating the mentally handicapped.

….this is why I no longer spend much time here.

a lot of you have lost the plot

Dare I say that your concern is noted?

(Whether the original routine was poking fun at misogyny or not, which, honestly, is a stretch, if you are going to use it as a meme, it also needs to be done to EXPLICITLY poke fun at misogyny. Otherwise the effect is just randomly inserting “slut” into the conversation. Is that really poking fun at misogyny or just a thin excuse to use a sexist slur in the Holy Name of Humor?)

Slurs affect more than just the victim of the moment. A sexist slur is still a sexist slur, even when it’s also a humorous pop-culture reference.

That’s my thinking.

To those defending the comment: No, I never watched the skit this is from. Do I need that frame of reference to understand that a sexist slur somehow is not a sexist slur in certain contexts?

This reminds me of the situation with Stephen Colbert earlier this year, when people got mad at him for the racist Tweet. Yes, just like the SNL skit under discussion, the Tweet works when you understand the context, but not everyone knows the context. I don’t think it’s a good idea to use a sexist slur as part of the punchline of a joke that pokes fun at misogyny bc there can be splash damage, as not everyone “gets it”.

sorry, but the pop culture reference is to an instance where the idea was to poke AT misogyny.

Mm. The idea behind Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is to indict institutionalized racism and slavery. It contains the term “nigger”. Does that inclusion mean that the term is not a racist slur?

The phrase “you ignorant slut” is an expression of contempt aimed at a woman. By itself, it does not poke at misogyny; it is indeed an expression of misogyny.

As LykeX says (as I understand), the only way to undermine that is to follow the phrase with something you don’t actually believe; something deeply, satirically, stupid.

“PZ, you ignorant slut, the world was created 6000 years ago by God Almighty. The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”

Even that might well be problematic. I seem to recall seeing the suggestion that ironic sexism provides cover for real sexism.

But using the phrase as an expression of real contempt for something really believed to be contemptable just leaves the misogyny expressed, even if the speaker doesn’t intend to be sexist. Intent, as we keep having to remind ourselves, is not magic.

frankly, SNL pushed sexual equality forward, and was one of the primary forces of its heyday in doing so.

Do you really think it did so by making “you ignorant slut” a catchphrase?

I’m sorry I referred to it as such, but that doesn’t change the criticism of it. Again-yes, I am pop culture deficient in this area. But if that joke is to work, you have to be aware that it is poking fun at misogyny, and I wasn’t. Other people are going to be in the same boat. Is the joke so good that it’s worth continuing to use in the face of potential splash damage?

I seem to recall seeing the suggestion that ironic sexism provides cover for real sexism.

Thinking about and expanding on this: It’s possible that a non-negligible fraction of viewers of SNL might well have heard “Jane, you ignorant slut”, and didn’t actually pay attention to what Ackroyd was saying, or they didn’t care if it was dumb — they just thought something along the lines of “Yeah, you tell her! You put that uppity bitch in her place!”.

“Meta-disparagement” humor refers to jokes that explicitly target a minority while implicitly ridiculing those who would laugh at the joke at face value. Through the use of irony, an implicit bigot is summoned as the true joke target. But at an explicit level, these jokes are offensive perpetuations of stereotypes. Thus, while meta-disparagement humor purports to undermine stereotypes, it may in fact reinforce and perpetuate them. Using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, this dissertation investigates this possibility vis-à-vis humor that targets women, blacks, gay people, and Arabs. A discursive textual analysis of this type of humor in popular television series reveals that meta-disparagement humor most often derives from “hyperbole of prejudice” to ultimately critique political correctness. For all four groups, meta-disparagement humor is a double-edged phenomenon, indulging in stereotypes to ridicule them. A quantitative content analysis of the same television series determines the prevalence of and power dynamics embedded in this type of humor. A survey establishes baseline attitudes towards these groups. Finally, a series of six experiments tests the effects meta-disparagement versus direct disparagement humor of the four groups of interest on attitudes towards these groups using a variety of outcome variables. Overall, the experiments point to negative effects of this type of humor, such that stereotypes are more salient and impact subsequent judgments.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

It’s a PhD dissertation by someone that a friend of my knows. I’m not actually familiar with the author, but I’m certain that this is the person my friend (who is currently at U of M getting a PhD) was describing based on the topic and the research. My friend had encouraged me to read this a while back but I never looked it up. Now I’ve got it on my hard drive. Small world.

Hmm. How to decide what’s right or wrong?
I know! I’ll go into this building, and then just believe according to how they describe right and wrong!
It worked out for years prior to 1945. Also in other patches here and there. Why not now?